Intermittent theta burst stimulation vs. high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke dysfunction: a Bayesian model-based network meta-analysis of RCTs.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurological Sciences Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-21 DOI:10.1007/s10072-024-07918-6
Yanbing Huang, Caihui Li, Rongda Cai, Tianlai Lin, Weiwen Chen
{"title":"Intermittent theta burst stimulation vs. high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke dysfunction: a Bayesian model-based network meta-analysis of RCTs.","authors":"Yanbing Huang, Caihui Li, Rongda Cai, Tianlai Lin, Weiwen Chen","doi":"10.1007/s10072-024-07918-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This research aims to comprehensively assess the efficacy of intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) vs. high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) in post-stroke dysfunction.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Until January 2024, extensive electronic database searches were conducted (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, etc.). Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremities (FMA-UE) was used to assess upper limb (UL) dysfunction; post-stroke dysphagia (PSD) was identified by Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA), Fiberoptic Endoscopic Dysphagia Severity Scale (FEDSS), and Penetration/Aspiration Scale (PAS). Results were analyzed by network meta-analysis (NMA), and the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were also reported. We conducted a descriptive analysis due to the inability to synthesize data on post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>19 studies were included for NMA analysis. For UL disorder, the efficacy of treatments was ranked as HF-rTMS [MD (95%CI):3.00 (1.69,4.31)], iTBS [MD (95%CI): 2.16 (0.84, 3.50)], and sham stimulation (reference). For PSD, the efficacy of treatment to reduce scores of FEDSS or SSA were iTBS [FEDSS, MD (95%CI): -0.80 (-1.13, -0.47); SSA, MD (95%CI): -3.37 (-4.36, -2.38)], HF-rTMS [FEDSS, MD (95%CI): -0.43 (-0.76, -0.10); SSA, MD (95%CI): -2.62 (-3.91, -1.35)], and sham stimulation(reference). Descriptive analysis of PSCI found that both iTBS and HF-rTMS were effective in improving PSCI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HF-rTMS demonstrates superior efficacy in UL dysfunction, while iTBS is more effective in PSD. Clinicians should carefully evaluate the type and severity of post-stroke dysfunction in each patient to select the most appropriate treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":19191,"journal":{"name":"Neurological Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1525-1539"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11919949/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-024-07918-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This research aims to comprehensively assess the efficacy of intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) vs. high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) in post-stroke dysfunction.

Materials and methods: Until January 2024, extensive electronic database searches were conducted (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, etc.). Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremities (FMA-UE) was used to assess upper limb (UL) dysfunction; post-stroke dysphagia (PSD) was identified by Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA), Fiberoptic Endoscopic Dysphagia Severity Scale (FEDSS), and Penetration/Aspiration Scale (PAS). Results were analyzed by network meta-analysis (NMA), and the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were also reported. We conducted a descriptive analysis due to the inability to synthesize data on post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI).

Results: 19 studies were included for NMA analysis. For UL disorder, the efficacy of treatments was ranked as HF-rTMS [MD (95%CI):3.00 (1.69,4.31)], iTBS [MD (95%CI): 2.16 (0.84, 3.50)], and sham stimulation (reference). For PSD, the efficacy of treatment to reduce scores of FEDSS or SSA were iTBS [FEDSS, MD (95%CI): -0.80 (-1.13, -0.47); SSA, MD (95%CI): -3.37 (-4.36, -2.38)], HF-rTMS [FEDSS, MD (95%CI): -0.43 (-0.76, -0.10); SSA, MD (95%CI): -2.62 (-3.91, -1.35)], and sham stimulation(reference). Descriptive analysis of PSCI found that both iTBS and HF-rTMS were effective in improving PSCI.

Conclusions: HF-rTMS demonstrates superior efficacy in UL dysfunction, while iTBS is more effective in PSD. Clinicians should carefully evaluate the type and severity of post-stroke dysfunction in each patient to select the most appropriate treatment.

间歇性θ波爆发刺激与高频重复经颅磁刺激治疗脑卒中后功能障碍:基于贝叶斯模型的随机对照试验网络荟萃分析
目的:本研究旨在综合评估间歇性脉冲刺激(iTBS)与高频重复经颅磁刺激(HF-rTMS)对脑卒中后功能障碍的疗效。材料和方法:直到2024年1月,进行了广泛的电子数据库检索(PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science等)。Fugl-Meyer上肢功能评估(FMA-UE)用于评估上肢(UL)功能障碍;卒中后吞咽困难(PSD)通过标准化吞咽评估(SSA)、光纤内镜吞咽困难严重程度量表(FEDSS)和穿透/吸入量表(PAS)进行鉴定。结果采用网络荟萃分析(NMA)进行分析,并报告平均差值(MD)和95%置信区间(95% CI)。由于无法综合脑卒中后认知障碍(PSCI)的数据,我们进行了描述性分析。结果:纳入19项研究进行NMA分析。对于UL障碍,治疗效果排名为HF-rTMS [MD (95%CI):3.00 (1.69,4.31)], iTBS [MD (95%CI): 2.16(0.84, 3.50)]和假刺激(参考)。对于PSD,治疗对降低FEDSS或SSA评分的疗效为iTBS [FEDSS, MD (95%CI): -0.80 (-1.13, -0.47);马里兰州SSA (95% ci): -3.37 (-4.36, -2.38)], HF-rTMS(联邦政府,MD (95% ci): -0.43 (-0.76, -0.10);SSA, MD (95%CI): -2.62(-3.91, -1.35)]和假刺激(参考)。对PSCI的描述性分析发现,iTBS和HF-rTMS对改善PSCI均有效。结论:HF-rTMS对UL功能障碍的治疗效果较好,而iTBS对PSD的治疗效果更好。临床医生应仔细评估每位患者脑卒中后功能障碍的类型和严重程度,以选择最合适的治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurological Sciences
Neurological Sciences 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
3.00%
发文量
743
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: Neurological Sciences is intended to provide a medium for the communication of results and ideas in the field of neuroscience. The journal welcomes contributions in both the basic and clinical aspects of the neurosciences. The official language of the journal is English. Reports are published in the form of original articles, short communications, editorials, reviews and letters to the editor. Original articles present the results of experimental or clinical studies in the neurosciences, while short communications are succinct reports permitting the rapid publication of novel results. Original contributions may be submitted for the special sections History of Neurology, Health Care and Neurological Digressions - a forum for cultural topics related to the neurosciences. The journal also publishes correspondence book reviews, meeting reports and announcements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信